Cargando…

Comparison of Prioritisation Schemes for Human Pharmaceuticals in the Aquatic Environment

Only a small proportion of pharmaceuticals available for commercial use have been monitored in the aquatic environment, and even less is known about the effects on organisms. With thousands of pharmaceuticals in use, it is not feasible to monitor or assess the effects of all of these compounds. Prio...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Letsinger, Sarah, Kay, Paul
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6513794/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30515684
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3834-9
_version_ 1783417762888024064
author Letsinger, Sarah
Kay, Paul
author_facet Letsinger, Sarah
Kay, Paul
author_sort Letsinger, Sarah
collection PubMed
description Only a small proportion of pharmaceuticals available for commercial use have been monitored in the aquatic environment, and even less is known about the effects on organisms. With thousands of pharmaceuticals in use, it is not feasible to monitor or assess the effects of all of these compounds. Prioritisation schemes allow the ranking of pharmaceuticals based on their potential as environmental contaminants, allowing resources to be appropriately used on those which are most likely to enter the environment and cause greatest harm. Many different types of prioritisation schemes exist in the literature and those utilising predicted environmental concentrations (PECs), the fish plasma model (FPM), critical environmental concentrations (CECs) and acute ecotoxicological data were assessed in the current study using the 50 most prescribed drugs in the UK. PECs were found to be overestimates of mean measured environmental concentrations but mainly underestimations of maximum concentrations. Acute ecological data identified different compounds of concern to the other effects assessments although the FPM and CECs methods were more conservative. These schemes highlighted antidepressants, lipid regulators, antibiotics, antihypertensive compounds and ibuprofen as priority compounds for further study and regulation. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s11356-018-3834-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6513794
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65137942019-05-28 Comparison of Prioritisation Schemes for Human Pharmaceuticals in the Aquatic Environment Letsinger, Sarah Kay, Paul Environ Sci Pollut Res Int Research Article Only a small proportion of pharmaceuticals available for commercial use have been monitored in the aquatic environment, and even less is known about the effects on organisms. With thousands of pharmaceuticals in use, it is not feasible to monitor or assess the effects of all of these compounds. Prioritisation schemes allow the ranking of pharmaceuticals based on their potential as environmental contaminants, allowing resources to be appropriately used on those which are most likely to enter the environment and cause greatest harm. Many different types of prioritisation schemes exist in the literature and those utilising predicted environmental concentrations (PECs), the fish plasma model (FPM), critical environmental concentrations (CECs) and acute ecotoxicological data were assessed in the current study using the 50 most prescribed drugs in the UK. PECs were found to be overestimates of mean measured environmental concentrations but mainly underestimations of maximum concentrations. Acute ecological data identified different compounds of concern to the other effects assessments although the FPM and CECs methods were more conservative. These schemes highlighted antidepressants, lipid regulators, antibiotics, antihypertensive compounds and ibuprofen as priority compounds for further study and regulation. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s11356-018-3834-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2018-12-04 2019 /pmc/articles/PMC6513794/ /pubmed/30515684 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3834-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Research Article
Letsinger, Sarah
Kay, Paul
Comparison of Prioritisation Schemes for Human Pharmaceuticals in the Aquatic Environment
title Comparison of Prioritisation Schemes for Human Pharmaceuticals in the Aquatic Environment
title_full Comparison of Prioritisation Schemes for Human Pharmaceuticals in the Aquatic Environment
title_fullStr Comparison of Prioritisation Schemes for Human Pharmaceuticals in the Aquatic Environment
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Prioritisation Schemes for Human Pharmaceuticals in the Aquatic Environment
title_short Comparison of Prioritisation Schemes for Human Pharmaceuticals in the Aquatic Environment
title_sort comparison of prioritisation schemes for human pharmaceuticals in the aquatic environment
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6513794/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30515684
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3834-9
work_keys_str_mv AT letsingersarah comparisonofprioritisationschemesforhumanpharmaceuticalsintheaquaticenvironment
AT kaypaul comparisonofprioritisationschemesforhumanpharmaceuticalsintheaquaticenvironment